European migrant crisis [Megathread]

[Kuntantee]

Which only prevents penalties for refugees who enter directly from the conflict zone - not in other cases (exactly what it means is debated).
However, non-penalty doesn't prevent their expulsion from the new country - and thus no-one stated that the Dublin-treaty was illegal.

If you haven't noticed, a good portion of refugees were trying to enter Europe illegally and they were mostly successful.

And similarly EU sending back refugees to Turkey. Obviously that might be a bit problematic if Turkey refuses.

Not really. You can't send refugees back. If Turkey is not willing to take them in, then, EU is not entitled to expulsion. This is how Geneva Convention works.

[Deleted]

I believe it did, very much so.
Bein "from a country at war" is not the end all determining factor of either setting a claim or being given refugee status.

his question was, people who have or do not have refugee status - You debating what criteria count does not answer the question.

[Forogil]

Not really. You can't send refugees back. They are protected from expulsion (see the relevant article in Geneva Convention).

I have, and it states that refugees that are legally in the country may not be expelled (except for security reasons), but the ones that enter illegally are not legally in the country - and thus have weaker protections.
That's why EU can send refugees back to Turkey (and similarly for the Dublin-treaty I assume).

[Kuntantee]

I have, and it states that refugees that are legally in the country may not be expelled (except for security reasons), but the ones that enter illegally are not legally in the country - and thus have weaker protections.
That's why EU can send refugees back to Turkey (and similarly for the Dublin-treaty I assume).

EU can send refugees back, because Turkey is willing to accept them. I removed that part to avoid confusion, I worded that part a bit poorly. Geneva convention doesn't rule any sort of "taking-back" policy. Turkey is under no obligation to accept them, legally speaking. If they choose to come Turkey willingly, however, that's another story.

[Deleted]

Go read Geneva Convention and end your ignorance. The Geneva convention mentions nothing even remotely close to "losing refugee status" or anything when you change a country.

didn't say it did.
It's just these things that are important to note:
A, you can deport them to said country, B, you don't have to let them in.

So, speaking judicially, they are refugees,

No you are only a refugee once you have been granted asylum - prior to this point you are not a refugee.

whether some racist accepts it or not. Moving on, ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with historical context. It's simply forced migration of a particular ethnic group.

Of people who live there - it would be an ethnic cleansing if Germany were to deport all the guest worker Turks, it would not be if they deported every single 'refugee' that arrived in 2015.

You better drop your archaic, 19th-century-style racist views. They are disgusting.

I'm not racist, and would love your logic for coming to that conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

If you haven't noticed, a good portion of refugees were trying to enter Europe illegally and they were mostly successful.

because the EU were not willing to deport them - The Australian solution is perfectly compatible with the Geneva convention.

Not really. You can't send refugees back. If Turkey is not willing to take them in, then, EU is not entitled to expulsion. This is how Geneva Convention works.

so what you are saying its compatible with the Geneva convention to not give a shit about their asylum application and return then to turkey even though they are refugees?
Its almost like that is what we have been saying here.

[Kuntantee]

didn't say it did.
It's just these things that are important to note:
A, you can deport them to said country, B, you don't have to let them in.

No you are only a refugee once you have been granted asylum - prior to this point you are not a refugee.

Of people who live there - it would be an ethnic cleansing if Germany were to deport all the guest worker Turks, it would not be if they deported every single 'refugee' that arrived in 2015.

How removing Turks and removing Jews are not same? And former constitutes an ethnic cleansing, when the latter does not?

I'm not racist, and would love your logic for coming to that conclusion.

Easy. If you claim relocating Jews to some remote Island in Americas does not constitute an ethnic cleansing, because they are not ethnic German, I don't know what else I should conclude.

[Forogil]

If Turkey is not willing to take them in, then, EU is not entitled to expulsion. This is how Geneva Convention works.

Not at all. A refugee that is legally in EU may not be expelled to Turkey just because Turkey is willing to accept them.

[Deleted]

EU can send refugees back, because Turkey is willing to accept them.

That's a practical problem not a legal problem.

[Kuntantee]

Not at all. A refugee that is legally in EU may not be expelled to Turkey just because Turkey is willing to accept them.

Okay, can you point out which article puts Turkey under obligation to take those refugees back?

[Deleted]

his question was, people who have or do not have refugee status - You debating what criteria count does not answer the question.

"Being from a country at war" does not affect whether or not you have refugee status.

[Deleted]

How removing Turks and removing Jews are not same? And former constitutes an ethnic cleansing, when the latter is not?

I see your problem, you should read the post again, because i didn't say that the Madagascar plan wouldn't have constituted ethnic cleaning of the Jews.

Easy. If you claim relocating Jews to some remote Island in Americas does not constitute an ethnic cleansing, because they are not ethnic German, I don't know what else I should conclude.

I said the comparison was bad because the refugees are not citizens and the jews were.

[Vilendor]

Yeah, just let Greece deal with the problem, so you Hungarian parasites can keep a "clean" country.

Hey, just keep letting them in and keep transporting them directly from the libian and turkish coasts, so you greek rodents can keep pointing fingers, playing the victim and begging for next loan (again, who is the real parasite here?)

How about picking up your lazy ass from the chairs and do some work the first time in your life, do your fucking job, register them and send the fake refugees home so you could get rid 80% of them?! Huh?

[Deleted]

Okay, can you point out which article puts Turkey under obligation to take those refugees back?

No one said that.

[Forogil]

EU can send refugees back, because Turkey is willing to accept them.

You are missing the condition that they entered illegally: "The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order."

[Deleted]

"Being from a country at war" does not affect whether or not you have refugee status.

uhm, yes it does.
there are other reasons for an asylum application but war is at the top.

[Kuntantee]

You are missing the condition that they entered illegally: "The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order."

Okay, does that oblige Turkey to take back refugees entered illegally?

[Deleted]

uhm, yes it does.
there are other reasons for an asylum application but war is at the top.

And yet, there are other reasons, which is why we have refugees in here now that are not from countries at war.

[Kuntantee]

Turkey proposed a good solution. A buffer zone within Syria, close to flight, to accommodate them properly in their own country. West (bar Germany) didn't give a fuck because West was trying to put Kurds in a position of power to later leverage them both against Turkey and Syria and perhaps Iran.

Here I am hoping that refugee deal blows up, and you get another million refugees and perhaps only then you won't go full "smart", following USA directly. You are lucky that we have a traitor ruling this country. If someone in his right mind was ruling, you would be flooded with refugees or help Turkey to accommodate them in Syria.

[Forogil]

Okay, does that oblige Turkey to take back refugees entered illegally?

I never claimed that, but you incorrectly claimed that EU could sent refugees back to Turkey just because Turkey accepted them - while that only applies to refugees that are illegally in the country - contrary to claims that entering illegally was unproblematic. That's also why countries build fences, preventing them from entering their countries.

[Kuntantee]

I never claimed that, but you incorrectly claimed that EU could sent refugees back to Turkey just because Turkey accepted them - while that only applies to refugees that are illegally in the country - contrary to claims that entering illegally was unproblematic. That's also why countries build fences, preventing them from entering their countries.

I said EU is entitled to send illegal refugees back, so long as someone, in this case Turkey, is willing to accept them.